to be recognised as good with a violin solo, you have to be really good. There's a few solo acts for violins, but so many more for guitars, keyboards, logic pro or whatever. Arguably drums and bass are in a similar position.

also violins tend not to sound wonderful on their own unless in the hands of a very skilled musician. They just don't.

I suppose that is a fair point, I don't know.. Maybe I am naive for still looking past that and still really wanting to learn. I guess I will learn one way or another though, well possibly not because violins are quite expensive and lessons are as well. So, perhaps someday!

I mean don't let me stop you if it's something you really want to do, but I played the violin for about 5 years before I gave up and I don't feel like I've gained anything having spent that long, except a slightly better grasp of music theory.

Alright, well - I do appreciate your input. I will make sure it is an investment I am willing to follow through with before I make any purchases As always, thanks a bunch!

Oh, I was wondering - what is you guys' opinions on sampling in music? I know it isn't a debate that caused major divides amongst average people, but it is something I am sure people have opinions on. Like, personally I am kind of in the sort of a neutral opinion. I understand both sides of it. I wouldn't really disagree with either side, but I do know it is a topic that some peeps might have things to say on

Well, I think randomly thrown in isn't quite my impression of it - I think a lot of apprehension and dislike comes from the legal and creative reasons, but I think a lot of support comes from new creations building on the advancements of previous generations. So, I don't know quite where I stand

ElectroYoshi wrote:I think sampling, in general, is kind of a dumb concept. I just don't see what songs gain from having snippets of other songs randomly thrown in.

it's not random, that's the whole point.time for some examples to change your mind

lets start with plunderphonics. From wikipedia, plunderphonics is "any music made by taking one or more existing audio recordings and altering them in some way to make a new composition." My favourite album of all time is Since I Left You by The Avalanches. It's a brilliantly composed album and it uses a mind boggling number of samples - somewhere in the thousands in total. But it's not haphazardly produced, sloppily slapped together or samples thrown in for the sake of it. Here's two of their songs.

[media=youtube]U8BWBn26bX0[/media][media=youtube]frOGMISQGrI[/media]that second one uses a sample from [url='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhTgUulWUPI#t=7']Ma Baker[/url] quite extensively, and is also one of the best songs on the album, in my opinion.Other good tracks from that album are [url='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI89J55wZj8']Electricity[/url] and[url='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUyKdaNKHzo']Since I Left you[/url] (the title track). However, you really should listen to the whole album if you enjoyed any of those songs because it's a beautiful album and a very good example of sampling done right.

something similar to this (which you might already have heard) is [url='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTx3G6h2xyA']Pop Culture[/url] by Madeon. Also a great song, though more a mashup than plunderphonics

those are extreme example though. There's also smaller cases of artists sampling other songs in their tracks, either as shoutouts or just to add to the song.Take Kanye's [url='http://youtu.be/ouwCWDbBskU?t=34s']Power[/url]and King Crimson's [url='http://youtu.be/IU_JC0NCGkc?t=1m35s']21st Century Schizoid Man[/url]. Both are great songs in their own right, and would Power be better off without that sample? Probably not.

And yes, there are some cases where songs are 'sampled' without permission or in such a way that it's blatantly obvious they're the same song. One well known example involves [url='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmp3MguaTSA']Rebound[/url] by Mat Zo and Arty and[url='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV6W6_PUj0E']Let's Go[/url] by will.i.am. Listen to Rebound first, then play spot the difference with Let's Go and Rebound. It's quite something.Still, it's worth noting that will.i.am just happens to be a massive prick, and the fact he basically ripped someone else's song and recorded Chris Brown on top of it is not representative of all sampling in music.

Hell, a lot hip hop or electronic music (and those are very broad genres) rely heavily on samples, and there are some truly amazing songs that are great thanks to the samples they use and the way they use them.

Brushing off sampling as lazy or dumb is really, really silly.The legal consequences of sampling is something I'd rather not discuss in a thread about music because its a very fuzzy, subjective area.

papaya wrote:personally I don't see the appeal in a lot of indie rock stuff like imagine dragons or similar. I think it sounds too whiny, more focus on the style of the band and deep lyrics than the music.

IMO a lot of popular music today in general focuses too much on lyrics and voice rather than instrumentation. Nobody cares whether or not the song as a whole is good as long as the vocals are catchy. In fact, there are a bunch of popular songs that have maybe one or two instruments tops. It's as though everything besides the singing is an afterthought, and a lot of music ends up being hard to distinguish based on instruments alone since it's all so similar and uninspired. Things like guitar and other instrument solos don't seem to exist anymore either.

That's not to say all current pop music is like this thought. Some bands and artists still know how to make good music beyond the vocal standpoint. I think a good example would be Get Lucky by Daft Punk, considering anybody can identify it based on that kickass guitar.

Pliskin wrote:That's not to say all current pop music is like this thought. Some bands and artists still know how to make good music beyond the vocal standpoint. I think a good example would be Get Lucky by Daft Punk, considering anybody can identify it based on that kickass guitar.

[url='https://twitter.com/DaftLimmy/status/386095139393122304']Check out Daft Punk's[/url] [url='https://twitter.com/DaftLimmy/status/396256941212958720']new single "Get Lucky" if you get the chance[/url][url='https://twitter.com/DaftLimmy/status/391168530290601984']. Sound of the summer.[/url]

Pliskin wrote:IMO a lot of popular music today in general focuses too much on lyrics and voice rather than instrumentation. Nobody cares whether or not the song as a whole is good as long as the vocals are catchy. In fact, there are a bunch of popular songs that have maybe one or two instruments tops. It's as though everything besides the singing is an afterthought, and a lot of music ends up being hard to distinguish based on instruments alone since it's all so similar and uninspired. Things like guitar and other instrument solos don't seem to exist anymore either.

That's not to say all current pop music is like this thought. Some bands and artists still know how to make good music beyond the vocal standpoint. I think a good example would be Get Lucky by Daft Punk, considering anybody can identify it based on that kickass guitar.

vocals have always played a big part in popular songs. I cannot think of a time where mainstream top 40 music was more about instrumentation than vocals. Similarly, there have also always been a few who have focused on instruments that hit the top 40 too.

saying vocals aren't important basically says you think rap/hip hop is not a genre of music - Which is incredibly stupid.

also, also, ALSO, daft punk have always had catchy vocals. The whole of Discovery was basically built around that (though I doubt you even knew about daft punk before get lucky). I don't know anyone who identifies Get Lucky by the guitar more than Pharrel's vocals. The average person can't play an instrument, but they do have a voicebox.

on another note, what about big room and similar electronic music? I sure don't recognise Animals for the line "We're the fucking animals", I recognise it by the drop that comes after. Pretty much all popular electronic music is built around recognisable, simple drops. Those are your guitar solos. And a lot of this music is pretty popular. Are you saying that Animals is original in a sea of shitty pop songs? Really?

Also, I think recognising the song is only one-half of the equation. Many other aspect will have their affect on a songs initial popularity. Such as marketing, publication, timely releases and staged dramatic publicity, which arguably blends marketing and timely events. As well as older songs being repackaged in films, or being mentioned by a popular idol which can bring in new traffic. Despite the public's, oddly cynical, view of this whole process - it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I am not trying to say that a song does not need to have a catchy or memorable, I am just positing that I think that there are many many variable to account for a songs popularity, at least from my observations.

it's also worth mentioning that a lot of popular songs are designed to play in clubs

in clubs the room will be very loud and it will be hard to make out every intricacy of the song. People will be dancing and drinking and having fun and they don't care about the masterful solo that some guitarist belts out.

on the other hand, more underground music is also more likely to be heard through headphones or expensive speakers, where any technical details stand out a lot more. They're also not really for dancing to (in a lot of cases, not all cases). Hence, to the pseudo-intellectual who doesn't quite grasp the idea of having fun and being social, it would seem that Top 40 stuff is hacked together in an hour junk and underground music is by its very nature infinitely superior to mainstream pop, which isn't necessarily true.

papaya wrote:[url='https://twitter.com/DaftLimmy/status/386095139393122304']Check out Daft Punk's[/url] [url='https://twitter.com/DaftLimmy/status/396256941212958720']new single "Get Lucky" if you get the chance[/url][url='https://twitter.com/DaftLimmy/status/391168530290601984']. Sound of the summer.[/url]

vocals have always played a big part in popular songs. I cannot think of a time where mainstream top 40 music was more about instrumentation than vocals. Similarly, there have also always been a few who have focused on instruments that hit the top 40 too.

saying vocals aren't important basically says you think rap/hip hop is not a genre of music - Which is incredibly stupid.

also, also, ALSO, daft punk have always had catchy vocals. The whole of Discovery was basically built around that (though I doubt you even knew about daft punk before get lucky). I don't know anyone who identifies Get Lucky by the guitar more than Pharrel's vocals. The average person can't play an instrument, but they do have a voicebox.

on another note, what about big room and similar electronic music? I sure don't recognise Animals for the line "We're the fucking animals", I recognise it by the drop that comes after. Pretty much all popular electronic music is built around recognisable, simple drops. Those are your guitar solos. And a lot of this music is pretty popular. Are you saying that Animals is original in a sea of shitty pop songs? Really?

Woah there cowboy.

I never said vocals aren't important to music. My issue is that a lot of the other aspects of music seem to take a back seat compared to the vocals, which I don't personally think is the way to go.

I doubt you even knew about daft punk before get lucky

I know what Discovery is, and I enjoy a lot of the songs from that album. Get Lucky just happened to be a recent song that came into my mind that I think has a pretty distinguished guitar (which recurs in other songs in Random Access Memories). In no way am I saying Daft Punk has bad vocals.

Also, I'm just not a big fan of electronic music like Animals. Not to say that it's bad music, I just don't personally enjoy it.

the pseudo-intellectual who doesn't quite grasp the idea of having fun and being social